1
   

Scoring last night's Republican Presidential primary debate

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 06:21 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm not sure why you think that the feminization of opposing candidates in a manner designed to insult them is worth a thumbs up.

It's pretty f*cking juvenille if you ask me

Cycloptichorn
Laughing As I posted; I wondered who'd come up with that hyper emotional, idiotic reaction. Congratulations, Cyclops. Laughing IF anyone is feminizing John Edwards; it's JOHN EDWARDS. Get a friggin grip. The comment slammed a Democrat for doing something STUPID, while perfectly illustrating absurd spending. Seems logical at a Republican Debate to me.
    As for the origins:
  • $400 haircut for a Male presidential hopeful: STUPID.
  • Billing it to his campaign: Beyond stupid.
  • Excusing it by saying it was a friend: Almost criminally stupid (as if openly paying excessive non-private funds to friends is a good idea for a politician). Hello…


The only thing more stupid that immediately comes to mind; is your (over)reaction. Laughing



dyslexia wrote:
I'm getting to the point that no matter who wins the republican primary Kucinich would havea good chance to win the election. Weird innit?
Weird that you believe that, ya.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 06:34 pm
I like the comments with the graphics and all, nimh. thanks. I didn't watch the debate, didn't watch the democrat one either. Just not very excited about em' left or right.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 07:13 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
    As for the origins:
  • $400 haircut for a Male presidential hopeful: STUPID.
  • Billing it to his campaign: Beyond stupid.
  • Excusing it by saying it was a friend: Almost criminally stupid (as if openly paying excessive non-private funds to friends is a good idea for a politician). Hello…

Conveniently forgetting while making such a stupid and puerile comment that your party was running Congress for the last 6 years:

PRICELESS!

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 07:19 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm not sure why you think that the feminization of opposing candidates in a manner designed to insult them is worth a thumbs up.

It's pretty f*cking juvenille if you ask me

Cycloptichorn
Laughing As I posted; I wondered who'd come up with that hyper emotional, idiotic reaction. Congratulations, Cyclops. Laughing IF anyone is feminizing John Edwards; it's JOHN EDWARDS. Get a friggin grip. The comment slammed a Democrat for doing something STUPID, while perfectly illustrating absurd spending. Seems logical at a Republican Debate to me.
    As for the origins:
  • $400 haircut for a Male presidential hopeful: STUPID.
  • Billing it to his campaign: Beyond stupid.
  • Excusing it by saying it was a friend: Almost criminally stupid (as if openly paying excessive non-private funds to friends is a good idea for a politician). Hello…


The only thing more stupid that immediately comes to mind; is your (over)reaction. Laughing



dyslexia wrote:
I'm getting to the point that no matter who wins the republican primary Kucinich would havea good chance to win the election. Weird innit?
Weird that you believe that, ya.


Yeah, but you find the comment funny, and call it the comment of the evening, because you find it to be funny to portray Edwards in a feminine light. Right? Don't lie.

If there's nothing wrong with feminizing, then there's nothing wrong with anything he did. You obviously have quite a problem with this, referring to it as 'stupid.' It is stupid for a person who is going to be in front of a camera all day for months to pay a lot of money to ensure that his hair looks good? Maybe you are against the vanity. Maybe you're just being a dick.

You claim not to be Republican, but you swallow their feminization=weak argument completely, to the point where you repeat it. Now that's funny Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 06:16 am
Its a talking point, cylcop, apparently aimed at the "red meat" crowd. Something we get to look foward to in the election days to come.

Quote:
HUCKABEE [video clip]: We've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop, and it's high time --

ROBERTS: Oh, yow!

VANDEHEI: That was good. It was great TV. It was great timing on Huckabee who, in both debates, I think, has been pretty smooth, pretty articulate, maybe can start to establish himself as a serious --

ROBERTS: Although I don't know that Huckabee should be making hair jokes.

VANDEHEI: I don't know if he should either, but it's great for that red meat audience. I mean, they love making fun of -- of sort of the masculinity of Democrats, and they love to take pokes at people -- Democrats who spend a lot of money. You know, they're elites, and that's what they want to -- that's the message they're trying to pound home.

ROBERTS: Well, if that's a sign of how these debates are going to go in the future, you know, I say more, more, more, because it was pretty interesting.


source



Example:

Quote:


source

Links to transcripts from CNN

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/16/ltm.03.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/16/gb.01.html
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 02:00 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
    As for the origins:
  • $400 haircut for a Male presidential hopeful: STUPID.
  • Billing it to his campaign: Beyond stupid.
  • Excusing it by saying it was a friend: Almost criminally stupid (as if openly paying excessive non-private funds to friends is a good idea for a politician). Hello…

Conveniently forgetting while making such a stupid and puerile comment that your party was running Congress for the last 6 years:

PRICELESS!

Laughing
Crawl back under your rock. You were not missed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm not sure why you think that the feminization of opposing candidates in a manner designed to insult them is worth a thumbs up.

It's pretty f*cking juvenille if you ask me

Cycloptichorn
Laughing As I posted; I wondered who'd come up with that hyper emotional, idiotic reaction. Congratulations, Cyclops. Laughing IF anyone is feminizing John Edwards; it's JOHN EDWARDS. Get a friggin grip. The comment slammed a Democrat for doing something STUPID, while perfectly illustrating absurd spending. Seems logical at a Republican Debate to me.
    As for the origins:
  • $400 haircut for a Male presidential hopeful: STUPID.
  • Billing it to his campaign: Beyond stupid.
  • Excusing it by saying it was a friend: Almost criminally stupid (as if openly paying excessive non-private funds to friends is a good idea for a politician). Hello…


The only thing more stupid that immediately comes to mind; is your (over)reaction. Laughing



dyslexia wrote:
I'm getting to the point that no matter who wins the republican primary Kucinich would havea good chance to win the election. Weird innit?
Weird that you believe that, ya.


Yeah, but you find the comment funny, and call it the comment of the evening, because you find it to be funny to portray Edwards in a feminine light. Right? Don't lie.

If there's nothing wrong with feminizing, then there's nothing wrong with anything he did. You obviously have quite a problem with this, referring to it as 'stupid.' It is stupid for a person who is going to be in front of a camera all day for months to pay a lot of money to ensure that his hair looks good? Maybe you are against the vanity. Maybe you're just being a dick.
Laughing Could you be more ridiculous? Laughing Boy that's just crazy some Republican brought up the FACT that Edwards paid more than any man in history for a haircut and billed it to his campaign. Who hasn't? (CLUE: every other candidate in the history of mankind.) Meanwhile; Excessive spending has been among the biggest problems with our government for decades. One need not consider Edwards feminine too see the stupidity here. The Opposition's reaction is incredibly predictable (… especially in light of the breck hair bs), and your failure to see the obvious is even more ridiculous than his brain-dead move was in the first place.

Your feigned indignation, and ill-fated attempt to deflect the truth of the stupidity, as a sexist slight, is denied. (Btw: Less feigned = More ridiculous, not less.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 02:08 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
    As for the origins:
  • $400 haircut for a Male presidential hopeful: STUPID.
  • Billing it to his campaign: Beyond stupid.
  • Excusing it by saying it was a friend: Almost criminally stupid (as if openly paying excessive non-private funds to friends is a good idea for a politician). Hello…

Conveniently forgetting while making such a stupid and puerile comment that your party was running Congress for the last 6 years:

PRICELESS!

Laughing
Crawl back under your rock. You were not missed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm not sure why you think that the feminization of opposing candidates in a manner designed to insult them is worth a thumbs up.

It's pretty f*cking juvenille if you ask me

Cycloptichorn
Laughing As I posted; I wondered who'd come up with that hyper emotional, idiotic reaction. Congratulations, Cyclops. Laughing IF anyone is feminizing John Edwards; it's JOHN EDWARDS. Get a friggin grip. The comment slammed a Democrat for doing something STUPID, while perfectly illustrating absurd spending. Seems logical at a Republican Debate to me.
    As for the origins:
  • $400 haircut for a Male presidential hopeful: STUPID.
  • Billing it to his campaign: Beyond stupid.
  • Excusing it by saying it was a friend: Almost criminally stupid (as if openly paying excessive non-private funds to friends is a good idea for a politician). Hello…


The only thing more stupid that immediately comes to mind; is your (over)reaction. Laughing



dyslexia wrote:
I'm getting to the point that no matter who wins the republican primary Kucinich would havea good chance to win the election. Weird innit?
Weird that you believe that, ya.


Yeah, but you find the comment funny, and call it the comment of the evening, because you find it to be funny to portray Edwards in a feminine light. Right? Don't lie.

If there's nothing wrong with feminizing, then there's nothing wrong with anything he did. You obviously have quite a problem with this, referring to it as 'stupid.' It is stupid for a person who is going to be in front of a camera all day for months to pay a lot of money to ensure that his hair looks good? Maybe you are against the vanity. Maybe you're just being a dick.
Laughing Could you be more ridiculous? Laughing Boy that's just crazy some Republican brought up the FACT that Edwards paid more than any man in history for a haircut and billed it to his campaign. Who hasn't? (CLUE: every other candidate in the history of mankind.) Meanwhile; Excessive spending has been among the biggest problems with our government for decades. One need not consider Edwards feminine too see the stupidity here. The Opposition's reaction is incredibly predictable (… especially in light of the breck hair bs), and your failure to see the obvious is even more ridiculous than his brain-dead move was in the first place.

Your feigned indignation, and ill-fated attempt to deflect the truth of the stupidity, as a sexist slight, is denied. (Btw: Less feigned = More ridiculous, not less.)


Nope. They laughed, not because it was stupid to spend so much, but because they find it funny to feminize their opponents. And so did you. It would be better to be honest then to prevaricate like this.

Tell me, why is it stupid to spend so much on a haircut? Specifically.

If he bought expensive suits, designed to make him look good - in the same way as his hair was - and billed it to the campaign, you would be equally indignant?

Think the line would have been as funny if the speaker had said 'Edwards in a barber shop' rather than 'beauty shop?' Nope. Because the feminine=weak angle is one which has been pushed by the Republicans for some time. They find it funny to feminize their opponents, and so do you. The joke wasn't about the amount spent at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 02:15 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
    As for the origins:
  • $400 haircut for a Male presidential hopeful: STUPID.
  • Billing it to his campaign: Beyond stupid.
  • Excusing it by saying it was a friend: Almost criminally stupid (as if openly paying excessive non-private funds to friends is a good idea for a politician). Hello…

Conveniently forgetting while making such a stupid and puerile comment that your party was running Congress for the last 6 years:

PRICELESS!

Laughing
Crawl back under your rock. You were not missed.

Neither were your non-responses. Laughing

Besides, I wasn't talking about your comment. I was talking about the comments made by the Republican candidate about Edwards, who somehow conveniently forgot that all that out of control spending happened under the watch of his party (R).

But you knew that, right?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 03:07 pm
Cyclops, I personally think Edwards is a scumbag and would be more than happy to laugh at feminize-Edwards-jokes, if it helps him lose ground in the polls. Overwhelmingly, however, the comments have been directed at the obscene price, not the location. The slamming comes as Two Americas etc... which has a hell of a lot more to do with class division than sexism.

I've had my hair cut at beauty shops, hundreds of times, sometimes even getting a manicure and massage while I'm at it. No hair cut has ever cost $40, let alone $400. I do not for one minute believe there is a quality difference between a $40 and a $400 hair cut. There is, without question, a HUGE quality difference between a $200 and $2,000 suit.

Defending $400 hair cuts is as hair-brained as defending $400 hammers and $2,000 toilet seats. Saying he spent someone else's money on it 'because it was a friend' is equally appalling. This is the behavior you expect from the City Planner who sends contracts to his brother-in-law. Set aside your hyper-partisanship for a moment and contemplate the absurdity you are defending. Substitute Bush in place of Edwards, if it helps you to recognize your folly.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 03:40 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nope. They laughed, not because it was stupid to spend so much, but because they find it funny to feminize their opponents. [..]

Think the line would have been as funny if the speaker had said 'Edwards in a barber shop' rather than 'beauty shop?' Nope. Because the feminine=weak angle is one which has been pushed by the Republicans for some time.

Astutely observed, that.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 03:43 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've had my hair cut at beauty shops, hundreds of times, sometimes even getting a manicure and massage while I'm at it. No hair cut has ever cost $40, let alone $400. I do not for one minute believe there is a quality difference between a $40 and a $400 hair cut. There is, without question, a HUGE quality difference between a $200 and $2,000 suit.

Defending $400 hair cuts is as hair-brained as defending $400 hammers and $2,000 toilet seats. Saying he spent someone else's money on it 'because it was a friend' is equally appalling. This is the behavior you expect from the City Planner who sends contracts to his brother-in-law. Set aside your hyper-partisanship for a moment and contemplate the absurdity you are defending. Substitute Bush in place of Edwards, if it helps you to recognize your folly.

All of this may be true, but does nothing to address Cyclo's observation about how the joke was phrased, and how that made the Republican audience laugh.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 03:45 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cyclops, I personally think Edwards is a scumbag and would be more than happy to laugh at feminize-Edwards-jokes, if it helps him lose ground in the polls. Overwhelmingly, however, the comments have been directed at the obscene price, not the location. The slamming comes as Two Americas etc... which has a hell of a lot more to do with class division than sexism.

I've had my hair cut at beauty shops, hundreds of times, sometimes even getting a manicure and massage while I'm at it. No hair cut has ever cost $40, let alone $400. I do not for one minute believe there is a quality difference between a $40 and a $400 hair cut. There is, without question, a HUGE quality difference between a $200 and $2,000 suit.

Defending $400 hair cuts is as hair-brained as defending $400 hammers and $2,000 toilet seats. Saying he spent someone else's money on it 'because it was a friend' is equally appalling. This is the behavior you expect from the City Planner who sends contracts to his brother-in-law. Set aside your hyper-partisanship for a moment and contemplate the absurdity you are defending. Substitute Bush in place of Edwards, if it helps you to recognize your folly.


It isn't even that I disagree with you about Edwards - I don't like the guy either and I'm not really happy with the fact that he leads a lot of Dem polls right now.

But I was really struck by the whole 'breck hair' thing. It went on for some time in Republican circles, and it wasn't about the price, it was about the feminization factor. This is hardly an isolated event or comment; they've been playing the feminization card in general and in specific against Edwards for a long time.

I must admit that it struck a nerve with me, because I would never have considered it to be the 'line of the evening.' Not even close. Because it's a cheap, weak attack that has zero to do with anything substantive, and everything to do with perceived weakness of women.

I didn't mean to argue with you per se, but I feel that it was one of the weakest lines of the evening, and it was only eclipsed in its' inappropriate nature by the resounding claps for encouraging the use of torture displayed by the audience on more than one occasion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 04:19 pm
Nimh, you're being as silly as Cyclops. If Edwards went down to the local pub and drank till he fell off his barstool; you couldn't blame the hated Republicans for joking about it. The price is absurd, and quite joke worthy. Billing it to his campaign was idiotic, the excuse deplorable, and the Republican reaction imminently predictable. If a $400 hair cut at a beauty shop is feminizing, then blame Edwards for being feminine, not those who laugh at the stupid decisions he makes because of it. I'd wager 10 to 1 that 9 out of 10 people in the audience, if polled, understood the point of the comment to be "overspending". That it happens to have a feminine implication is mere icing on the cake. If he had spent $1,000 on a grooming for his dog; do you think the joke wouldn't have been "We have a Congress that spends money like John Edwards at a Dog Groomer's"? And, if so, would you then argue that the hated Republican spin machine is implying he has an animal fetish by joking about it? Get real. You guys would have a point if they were slamming him for a $40 haircut at a beauty shop (still, excessively expensive, even in nice places for a man's haircut), but that is simply not the case here. You're essentially asking for absurd spending to be completely ignored because joking about it might be construed as anti-femine. That's just silly.

Cyclops, for clarification, I didn't say it was the line of the night; I said it was the "one-liner" of the night. If you disagree; please provide the better one.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 04:27 pm
Quote:
That it happens to have a feminine implication is mere icing on the cake.


Only if you find such comments to be appropriate, that is.

You ignore the very real fact that Feminization of opponents in order to equate them with weakness is a Republican trait. Edwards was being made fun of for his 'breck hair' long before it came out that it cost $400 dollars. It kind of puts the lie to the idea that it's the cost of the haircut which matters.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 04:31 pm
Well, Ann Coulter thinks that Edwards is a f*g, which also plays into the girly-man, homophobic culture of the Republican party. They eat that up. OCCOM BILL's comments are a testament to that. So many unbelievable important issues which should be reckoned with, and what are we talking about? Edwards haircut.

My god...

The debates were beyond a joke. There was no substance, no depth, no intellectual forsight. It was a series of one-liners and set-up questions purely designed to rally the shrinking Republican base. The posturing was truly unbelievable. But then again, it's pretty much the same thing for the Democratic primary debates as well. Especially with so many vying for the nomination.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 04:42 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
That it happens to have a feminine implication is mere icing on the cake.


Only if you find such comments to be appropriate, that is.

You ignore the very real fact that Feminization of opponents in order to equate them with weakness is a Republican trait. Edwards was being made fun of for his 'breck hair' long before it came out that it cost $400 dollars. It kind of puts the lie to the idea that it's the cost of the haircut which matters.

Cycloptichorn
Nonsense. The two criticisms are not mutually exclusive. In your warped sense of fair-play; no comment can be made about absurd spending IF said absurd spending is on a feminine sounding product? What if the price was $4,000? Or $40,000? How absurd does the spending need to be before it is no longer foul-play to comment on it? A normal hair cut costs between $10 and $20. $40 is higher than any price for a Men's hair cut I've seen. $400 is simply absurd. Pretending the hated Republicans should tiptoe past this blatant absurdity, on account of it implying feminism is ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 04:47 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
That it happens to have a feminine implication is mere icing on the cake.


Only if you find such comments to be appropriate, that is.

You ignore the very real fact that Feminization of opponents in order to equate them with weakness is a Republican trait. Edwards was being made fun of for his 'breck hair' long before it came out that it cost $400 dollars. It kind of puts the lie to the idea that it's the cost of the haircut which matters.

Cycloptichorn
Nonsense. The two criticisms are not mutually exclusive. In your warped sense of fair-play; no comment can be made about absurd spending IF said absurd spending is on a feminine sounding product? What if the price was $4,000? Or $40,000? How absurd does the spending need to be before it is no longer foul-play to comment on it? A normal hair cut costs between $10 and $20. $40 is higher than any price for a Men's hair cut I've seen. $400 is simply absurd. Pretending the hated Republicans should tiptoe past this blatant absurdity, on account of it implying feminism is ridiculous.


I understand that you may have thought the comment was funny b/c of the money involved, but I guarantee you that the audience was laughing at the feminization of Edwards, just like Coulter's audience laughed and applauded, just like Republicans usually do when someone is being feminized to make them look weak.

It wasn't that the haircut is a 'feminine-sounding product.' You are intentionally ignoring the history of this specific case, in which Edwards has been ridiculed by the Right-wing for being feminine - not for the cost of the haircut.

I agree the cost of the haircut was ridiculous, but so f*cking what? He's a multi-millionaire. He could wipe his ass with hundreds all day and it wouldn't make a difference to his bottom line at all. So what if he paid 400 dollars for a haircut? Rich folk buy 500k cars and 10 million dollar mansions, and you don't hear Republicans making jokes about that. The comment resonated because the idea of Edwards as a woman resonates with the audience and with Republicans in general.

Weak, Bill, weak. Just agree that you find the feminization of men to be funny and stop this nonsense.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 04:54 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
$40 is higher than any price for a Men's hair cut I've seen. $400 is simply absurd.


It may be absurd in your world, but it's not absurd in rich guy/metrosexual guy circles. I know more than a few guys who think nothing of spending in excess of $200 for their haircuts - and they're not even management-level in our company. A couple of them are temps who pay a lot more for fades and shades and gawd knows what else.

You're an old-skool white guy, O'Bill, and sometimes it's just more obvious than other times.

You've also made it clear in a number of places that you despise Edwards, so your perspective on what's wrong (if there is anything wrong) with a $400 haircut could be somewhat skewed by that.

~~~~~

Last night, when I read your comment about it, all I could think was "old-skool white guy". You'd have fit in nicely on that stage.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 05:01 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've had my hair cut at beauty shops, hundreds of times, sometimes even getting a manicure and massage while I'm at it.


What a homo.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 05:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree the cost of the haircut was ridiculous, but so f*cking what? He's a multi-millionaire. He could wipe his ass with hundreds all day and it wouldn't make a difference to his bottom line at all. So what if he paid 400 dollars for a haircut?
IT WASN'T HIS MONEY. Are you really now going to defend the idea that the man who aspires to the Presidency should be able to spend absurd amounts of other people's (ours) money, because he is a millionaire personally? Really? Examine the idiocy in that contention, then retract it. IT WASN'T HIS MONEY.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Rich folk buy 500k cars and 10 million dollar mansions, and you don't hear Republicans making jokes about that.
Actually, his house got some press, but the story didn't gain any traction because when you spend 10 times as much on a house, car or suit; you get a better product.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The comment resonated because the idea of Edwards as a woman resonates with the audience and with Republicans in general.
Rolling Eyes Along with majority who aren't hyper-sensitive, yes. However, the feminine angle isn't even the lead, let alone only, thing that makes the event joke-worthy. Do you live in a vacuum? Every comedian who does a daily monolog worked it into his routine.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Weak, Bill, weak. Just agree that you find the feminization of men to be funny and stop this nonsense.
I never said I didn't find the feminization of men to be funny, but the nonsense won't end until you face up to the fact that absurd spending is joke-worthy, even if a handful of hyper-sensitive folks whine about it's other implications.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 10:31:55